The main problem in the dispute between the United States and the European Union in the beef hormone dispute is to determine the extent that a country can use health or other concerns to prohibit trade. The major aspect of this dilemma is that the United States and Europe have different regulations concerning beef. Although the beef meets American and International standards it doesn’t meet some European regulations.

Even though the case went to the WTO and there were recommendations made, the have problem between the United States and the European Union has not been solved. In the case study it informs us that after the ruling in the favor of removing the barrier due to a lack of scientific evidence that hormone treated beef is bad, that the European Union persisted in the ban of all hormone treated beef (Moss 2002). In retaliation the United States placed tariffs on a mixture European Union goods; however, though the both the tariffs and beef restrictions remain, the parties are in negotiations (Moss 2002). Thus, there are a few different outcomes that may eventually take place, the ban on beef remains in place, the ban on beef is taken away in response to punitive tariffs, or the two parties come to an understanding and make compromises.

Because the United States has performed decades of research, they feel that the hormone-treated beef is perfectly safe to the end consumers. Research has shown that the amount of hormones in the treated beef isn’t significantly above the hormone levels found in naturally raised beef (Moss 2002). Thus, by taking the case to the WTO has tried to ensure that the European Union is not creating a non-tariff barrier to trade. Even though there are other tariffs placed on the European Union, they don’t seem to mind the higher costs. One measure the United States could take next is to increase the punitive tariffs higher until Europe drops its ban, thus, trying to force Europe into accepting its imports. While America could...

YOU MAY ALSO FIND THESE DOCUMENTS HELPFUL

...Comments on Chapter-10 |
Is WTODispute Settlement Effective? Written by - Keisuke Iida Book: The Politics of Global Governance Edited by Paul F Diehl &amp; Brain Frederking. |
Khaleda AKHTAR, Public Policy Program, Graduate School of Governance Studies, Meiji University. |
Prelude: In the massive protests in Seattle in 1999, more than 5000 protesters took part on issues of environment and exploitation of child labor in third world. It was an anti-globalization movement. World Trade Organization (WTO) became one of the most controversial institutions as evidenced by the massive protests in Seattle, Washington in November, 1999. Both the critics and supporters of WTO seem to believe that it is a highly effective organization. But the writer Keisuke Iida thinks that this assumption should be examined. And his paper on “Is WTOdispute settlement system effective?” is the first step of examination. In his paper the writer discussed about whether WTO is effective in dispute settlement or not. This assignment discuss about some comments on his article and effectiveness of WTOdispute settlement system. Before analyzing some comments, the organization WTO and the writer’s findings are explained here in short.
Effectiveness: According to Young &amp; Levy there are five types of...

...explain what is the core of the dispute
* The core of the dispute are economic relations between countries and its companies, which stand in WTO. In these situations each country tries to defend its rights and win, so WTO’s primary task is to solve the arising problems guided with one of the main principles - non-discrimination. The rule requires that a WTO member must apply the same conditions on all trade with otherWTO members, i.e. a WTO member has to grant the most favorable conditions under which it allows trade in a certain product type to all other WTO members. So in the case of China – USA disputeWTO uses this principle and forces China to open the market for U.S. movies, music and books. China regulated US movies and music so far in order to protect their domestic entertainment market. But WTO ruled that China has to open to foreign entertainment materials according to globalization.
2) Find and present at least three another disputes which are at the agenda of the Dispute Settlement Body of WTO.
* DISPUTE DS450: China — Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile and Automobile-Parts Industries
* The United States requested consultations with China concerning certain measures providing subsidies in the form of grants, loans, forgone...

...﻿
What is World Trade Organization (WTO)?
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world’s trading nations and ratified in their parliaments. The goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their business.
History
The WTO's predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), was established after World War II in the wake of other new multilateral institutions dedicated to international economic cooperation – notably the Bretton Woods institutions known as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. A comparable international institution for trade, named the International Trade Organization was successfully negotiated. The ITO was to be a United Nations specialized agency and would address not only trade barriers but other issues indirectly related to trade, including employment, investment, restrictive business practices, and commodity agreements. But the ITO treaty was not approved by the U.S. and a few other signatories and never went into effect.
In the absence of an international organization for trade, the GATT would over the years "transform itself" into a de facto international organization.
Members
160 members since 26 June 2014, with dates of WTO membership (and...

...Colombia, Costa Rica, el Salvador, Gautemala, Japan, Mexico, Phillipines, Senegal, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Venezuela. Measure at issue: US import prohibition of shrimp and shrimp products from non-certified countries (i.e. countries that had not used a TEDs for catching shrimp) Covered Provisions: Article I (General Most Favoured Nation Principle), GATT 1994 Article XI (General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions), GATT 1994 Article XII (Non-discriminatory Administration of Quantitative Restrictions), GATT 1994 Article XX (General Exceptions), GATT 1994 Request for Consultation: - 08 October, 1996 Date of circulation of Panel Report: - 15 May, 1998 Date of circulation of Appellate Body Report: - 12 October, 1998
Facts giving rise to the dispute: The Endangered Species Act, 1973 provided that all the sea turtles occurring in US waters to be treated as endangered or threatened species. The act of 1973 prohibits the take of such endangered sea turtles within United States, US seas and high seas except as authorised.  Pursuant to the Act of 1973, US issued regulations, in 1987, requiring all shrimp trawlers to use TEDs (Turtle Excluder Devices) and these regulations became fully effective in 1990.  In 1989, US enacted Section 609 of Public Law, which provided for the negotiations pertaining to bilateral and multilateral agreements for protection and conservation of sea turtles, with foreign governments so engaged in such activities. Further a...

...﻿Yaumil Akhyar
29113535
Lecture I:
Beef Graft Case
1. Create a short summary of the case and explain (a) who the suspects/convicts are and (b) what criminal charges are brought against them
2. Does the case involve gratification? If yes, towards who and provide explanation to justify your answers
3. Does the case involve “abuse of power/authority”? If yes, explain whose power is abused, how and in what capacity?
4. In what way has the case “cause losses to state budget”?
5. Beyond the legal charges, do you see any conflict of interest between the parties involved?
1. Summary of Beef Graft Case
The beginning of Beef Graft Case opened to public is when there was a caught of Ahmad Fathonah by Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK). Fathonah was caught with cash in amount of Rp 100.000.000,00 thas was sealed in a plastic bag and some documents. Fathonah was caught by KPK based on information that said there was a bribe transaction about beef import in the PT Indoguna Utama office. Based on that information, KPK caught Ahmad Fathonah that has accepted money (bribe) from Juard Effendi and Arya Abdi Effendi, the directors of PT Indoguna Utama. After some investigation, KPK made a statement that Luthfi Hasan Ishaq, The President of Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (PKS) was with Ahmad Fathonah as recipients of the bribe from...

...Video Case 2
Are Chinese Business Partnerships
A Good Deal For U.S. Companies?
Case Assignment Questions:
1. Compare and contrast joint ventures and wholly owned subsidiaries. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each form of market entry? Why might a company choose one over the other?
A joint venture is a partnership between two or more people or businesses/companies who will share all expense, profit, loss expertise and control in a specific project. A wholly owned subsidiary is a company that has all of its common stock owned by a parent company.
Both joint ventures and wholly owned subsidiaries are both ventures that other businesses/companies have a controlling stake in. These types of market entry are both quite different. The ownership of a joint venture is shared by two or more companies, while wholly owned subsidiaries ownership is maintained by one parent company. Joint ventures are less risky and the risk is equally shared, while wholly owned subsidiaries are riskier and all losses are on the parent company.
The advantages of a wholly owned subsidiary are the parent company has full control over the subsidiary company’s operations and can also meet the financial and other needs of the subsidiary company. The parent company also all the benefits instead of sharing any profits. The disadvantages of this type of entry are they are riskier, entry into a foreign market can be more difficult, and all the...

...Case study 3
United States - Standards for Reformulated and
Conventional Gasoline
INTRODUCTION
On 23 January 1995, the United States received a request from Venezuela to hold consultations under Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("General Agreement"), Article 14.1 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade ("TBT Agreement") and Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement ofDisputes ("DSU"), on the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency on 15 December 1993, entitled "Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives - Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline" (WT/DS2/1).
The consultations between Venezuela and the United States took place on 24 February 1995. As they did not result in a satisfactory solution of the matter, Venezuela, in a communication dated 25 March 1995, requested the Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") to establish a panel to examine the matter under Article XXIII:2 of the General Agreement and Article 6 of the DSU (WT/DS2/2). On 10 April 1995, the DSB established a panel in accordance with the request made by Venezuela. On 28 April 1995, the parties to the dispute agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference (DSU, Art. 7) and agreed on the composition of the Panel. On 31 May 1995, the DSB established a Panel in accordance with the request made by Brazil.
Australia, Canada, the...

...Uttar Pradesh State Road Trasnport Corporation v UP Rajya Sadak Parivahan Karamchari Union
Date Of Judgment: 9/03/2007 - Case No.: Appeal (civil) 1235 of 2007 - Bench: S. B. Sinha & Markandey Katju
Judgment: [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3735 of 2006]
[with CA 1238/2007 @ SLP(Civil) Nos. 10406/2006
CA 1236/2007 @ SLP(Civil) Nos. 10407/2006
CA 1237/2007 @ SLP(Civil) Nos. 10408/2006
Markandey Katju, J. - Leave granted.
These appeals have been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 6.9.2005 of the Uttaranchal High Court in Writ Petition No. 774 of 2002.
The appellant - U.P. Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'), has been constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The respondent which is a Trade Union of the appellant-Corporation, filed an Application before the Labour Court, Dehradun under Section 11-C of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Section 13A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, praying for a declaration that the 15 persons who were appointed on contract basis as 'drivers' and 'conductors' as shown in the annexed chart, be declared as regular and substantive workmen of the Corporation. It was also prayed in the said Application that the concerned workmen be given all the benefits and facilities of regular employees.
The aforesaid Application was allowed by the Labour Court, Dehradun by its order dated...